23 August 2005 (Tuesday)
dads in delivery
Today's New York Times Science section has a "Cases" article/essay on the possible detrimental effects of a father's presence in the delivery room on the parents' future romantic and sexual relationship:
In the age of the "new man," very little consideration is given to the potentially negative side effects of togetherness in the delivery room. Every man I have spoken with over the past few years knows he is expected to be with his wife when his child comes into the world.* * *
In the most striking cases, the symptoms that men experience come close to post-traumatic stress disorder, with its roots in the witnessing of an event that involves a threat to the physical integrity of self or others and responding with intense fear, helplessness or horror.
The symptoms, as my patients have reported, include recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the event and efforts to avoid recalling it.
I do not believe that most men suffer these symptoms. But some do. And predicting which men will be vulnerable to them is nearly impossible in a social climate in which men who admit reticence about being present in the delivery room risk being labeled throwbacks.
* * *
Women may want to consider the risks as they invite their partners to watch them bring new life into the world. For some of the passion that binds them together may leave their lives at the very same time.
I'm not quite sure what to make of this. If my mother were still alive, maybe I'd want her present at the births of my children in lieu of (or in addition to!) my husband. If I had a very close female friend, or if my sister were my age (and in either case, if the person in question were local), that might be an adequate substitute. But without those options, I can't imagine going through that experience without Julian, my partner and best friend, by my side.
I'd be okay with him staying up by my head, if he wanted to. I think I'd be willing to forego the mirror allowing me to see the baby emerging, and I certainly wouldn't want Julian to look if he didn't want to. Arguably, he is not allowed to look, according to halacha. (I wouldn't go for the curtain thing, though, just because in my ideal childbirth scenario, I'm not laid up in a bed.) Maybe we're on to something here, we Jews.
Cutting the cord? Let the medical professionals do it.
Oh, I absolutely refuse to give birth without my husband present. And he knows that. And while he pretty much stays by my head, we certainly didn't bother with a curtain thing, even with a bed involved. He can figure out where to look and where to not look... he's a grown man. I think it worked pretty well... doing it this way 6 times so far hasn't "cut the passion" in our relationship at all.
In theory I'd take a close female friend *in adddition* but I'm not giving up my husband's presense.
Setting aside the point that there is another person involved in the birth besides the pushy mom and the delicate dad, maybe during more eventful (I euphemise) births, the baby may need some assistance that the mother cannot provide. In births like that, I would suggest that the father get over himself and step up.
That said, I understand the good doctor's point in this article, but while he may have a good point, his tone is all wrong. I say this as a woman who wouldn't have been there myself for my babies' births, except that someone had to gestate them, and I have the equipment, thanks G-d. My one problem with this article is really in the second-to-last line: "Women may want to consider the risks as they invite their partners to watch them bring new life into the world." Condescending much, doctor?
I also take issue with the idea that men shouldn't support their partners throught labor because of what might happen--the idea that a birth is part of the woman's responsibility is retro--and not in a fashionable way.
Why can't this be addressed by the couple together, at which point they can come up with a plan that works for their familyi? I do think that a lot more preparation that sees a birth from the father's perspective could be useful.
While i would not want to be forced into the room to watch anything that skeeved me out, just because it's politically correct, I would want to fulfull my responsibilities as a parent, and those responsibilities are sometimes a little gross. I am not crazy about cleaning up dirty diapers or wet sheets, but as a parent I know that such things are tiny little blips compared to the joy of seeing my kids learn to walk, talk, or be considerate of each other and other people.
To be fair, and because Shanna asked, "refused" means a strong personal preference to continue to do things this way, not that I would go against God and nature and keep a baby inside my body that was ready to be born, just to wait for my husband.
On the other hand, his presence is important to me... my midwife is rather disappointed that I vetoed placing the baby directly on my bare chest after delivery... because while it sounds really cool, having a bared chest means no husband in the room. Sorry, I'm staying relatively clothed, (we're talking labor, after all, so relatively is the operative term) and the baby can go on my chest over my nightgown... which will have nursing openings to facilitate nrsing immediately, and there's your skin to skin contact anyway, but in a more tzinusdik way.
nicely said Ruth. exactly what I was thinking.
I'm quite sure it depends on the couple. I can safely say that I came away more traumatized than he did. and if it's not the husband's responsibility to deal with his wife in that situation, whose is it? (unless that's not what she wants).
